The final important question to be considered in this study of relief of the aged and infirm is: What proportion of the aged and infirm persons in the Relief Home in April, 1909, were there solely because of the earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906? To answer this question one must know the proportion between the total population of San Francisco and the aged and infirm in the almshouse for some time previous to 1906.
TABLE 123.—PROPORTION OF ALMSHOUSE INMATES AND OF ALMSHOUSE ADMISSIONS TO TOTAL POPULATION, SAN FRANCISCO, 1890, 1900, 1905, AND 1909
| Year | Population of city and county of San Francisco | Average number of almshouse inmates | Almshouse inmates per 1,000 of population | Admission to almshouse during year | Admissions to almshouse per 1,000 of population | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1890 | 298,997 | 736 | 2.5 | 560 | 1.9 | |
| 1900 | 342,782 | 947 | 2.8 | 670 | 2.0 | |
| 1905 | 379,847 | [278] | 890 | 2.3 | 773 | 2.0 |
| 1909 | 409,499 | [278] | 1,295 | 3.2 | 816 | 2.0 |
[278] Estimated.
It seems fair to assume that the disaster was responsible, at least in part, for the increase of the proportion of almshouse inmates in the population from 2.3 per 1,000 in 1905 to 3.2 per 1,000 in 1909. The fact that in 1909 the number of admissions was not higher indicates that already as regards this class the abnormal conditions resulting from the fire were passing away. The high death rate would shortly reduce the Relief Home population almost to its normal proportion.[279]
[279] Between 1900 and 1905 the inmates of the almshouse went in and out much more freely than they do now at the Relief Home, but the effect on the average number present is impossible to calculate.
The increase, from 1904-05 to 1909, in the relative number of almshouse inmates in the population must not be attributed wholly to the disaster. The condemnation of the unsanitary City and County Hospital threw a part of the burden of its chronic cases on the Relief Home. The shock of the disaster to highly nervous and ill-balanced persons doubtless produced insanity in a number of cases. As the state insane hospitals were already overcrowded, the least troublesome found refuge in the Relief Home. But perhaps the most important factor in producing this charitable burden was the general disorganization of industry in the years 1907-08, due to a street-car strike in San Francisco and to the financial panic. The slow recovery of certain industries caused by the exorbitant cost of building was perceptibly checked. The result was that only young and able-bodied men could get work. Old and semi-able men who would in normal times have continued for several years to make a bare living, could find no work after the brick cleaning was done. This economic stagnation accounts for the failure of some who were given tools, or small grants to set up little shops or buy stock to peddle. The buying capacity of the laboring class, their prospective patrons, was greatly diminished.
Finally, the number of the aged and the infirm in the Relief Home was increased by those sent from a number of the private charities whose buildings were burned or whose funds were lessened. The private charitable agencies were the more inclined to disburden themselves as the new institution was so attractive. As one of the employes put it: “If the city furnishes clean steam-heated rooms, three hot meals a day, electric lights, and every convenience, the place will always be full. Lots of people in the Relief Home never had so much before.” The new institution at its dedication was advertised to set a high standard of care. The maintenance of this standard by the superintendent drew to it, undoubtedly, some who formerly would not have applied for admission.
Since the variations in the numbers of the old almshouse inmates registered the increase due to the industrial stagnation following the labor agitation and the panic of 1893, it is reasonable to conclude that the several circumstances described above had increased the number of the inmates in the Relief Home as much as had the disaster of April 18, 1906.
An interesting question, growing out of the coalescence in the Relief Home of the Ingleside refugee group with the old almshouse population, is the comparative social standing of the two groups. Were the Ingleside inmates potential almshouse inmates or were they such as would not have arrived there but for a great and wholly impersonal misfortune? The “refugees” maintained in the Relief Home a class identity and were particular to insist that they were not like “the old almshouse people.” It has been pointed out[280] that there was a group at Ingleside whose occupations and general history marked them as belonging to a somewhat more skilful and resourceful class than the rest. Such of these as went to the Relief Home continued to be superior and exceptional, but far the larger number were precisely of the same human stuff as the interminable procession that had for forty years been entering the almshouse. On this point the testimony of employes who were in charge at Ingleside and later at the Relief Home was nearly unanimous and quite conclusive. They agreed that three-fourths of these refugees were “almshouse types” and would have reached an almshouse in a few years; and that some of the others, of rather better education and character, would have been cared for in private charitable institutions, or by children and relatives who because of the fire were too poor to take them. It is pointed out that these last if they shared the poverty of their kindred would have been far less comfortable than in the Home.